Pathway Summary

Consort map

Demographic information

Characteristic

N

Overall, N = 1501

control, N = 761

treatment, N = 741

p-value2

age

148

50.75 ± 12.59 (25 - 74)

51.04 ± 12.43 (25 - 74)

50.46 ± 12.83 (28 - 73)

0.779

Unknown

2

2

0

gender

150

0.918

f

115 (77%)

58 (76%)

57 (77%)

m

35 (23%)

18 (24%)

17 (23%)

occupation

150

0.802

day_training

2 (1.3%)

2 (2.6%)

0 (0%)

full_time

19 (13%)

10 (13%)

9 (12%)

homemaker

13 (8.7%)

6 (7.9%)

7 (9.5%)

other

2 (1.3%)

0 (0%)

2 (2.7%)

part_time

27 (18%)

13 (17%)

14 (19%)

retired

40 (27%)

20 (26%)

20 (27%)

self_employ

7 (4.7%)

4 (5.3%)

3 (4.1%)

student

2 (1.3%)

0 (0%)

2 (2.7%)

t_and_e

2 (1.3%)

1 (1.3%)

1 (1.4%)

unemploy

36 (24%)

20 (26%)

16 (22%)

marital

150

0.903

cohabitation

1 (0.7%)

0 (0%)

1 (1.4%)

divore

16 (11%)

10 (13%)

6 (8.1%)

in_relationship

4 (2.7%)

2 (2.6%)

2 (2.7%)

married

42 (28%)

22 (29%)

20 (27%)

none

75 (50%)

36 (47%)

39 (53%)

seperation

3 (2.0%)

2 (2.6%)

1 (1.4%)

widow

9 (6.0%)

4 (5.3%)

5 (6.8%)

edu

150

0.134

bachelor

36 (24%)

13 (17%)

23 (31%)

diploma

29 (19%)

20 (26%)

9 (12%)

hd_ad

4 (2.7%)

3 (3.9%)

1 (1.4%)

postgraduate

13 (8.7%)

6 (7.9%)

7 (9.5%)

primary

9 (6.0%)

3 (3.9%)

6 (8.1%)

secondary_1_3

17 (11%)

10 (13%)

7 (9.5%)

secondary_4_5

35 (23%)

19 (25%)

16 (22%)

secondary_6_7

7 (4.7%)

2 (2.6%)

5 (6.8%)

fam_income

150

0.945

10001_12000

6 (4.0%)

2 (2.6%)

4 (5.4%)

12001_14000

8 (5.3%)

4 (5.3%)

4 (5.4%)

14001_16000

8 (5.3%)

3 (3.9%)

5 (6.8%)

16001_18000

4 (2.7%)

2 (2.6%)

2 (2.7%)

18001_20000

7 (4.7%)

5 (6.6%)

2 (2.7%)

20001_above

28 (19%)

16 (21%)

12 (16%)

2001_4000

21 (14%)

12 (16%)

9 (12%)

4001_6000

15 (10%)

6 (7.9%)

9 (12%)

6001_8000

13 (8.7%)

7 (9.2%)

6 (8.1%)

8001_10000

11 (7.3%)

5 (6.6%)

6 (8.1%)

below_2000

29 (19%)

14 (18%)

15 (20%)

medication

150

132 (88%)

67 (88%)

65 (88%)

0.952

onset_duration

147

15.31 ± 10.57 (0 - 56)

15.79 ± 11.44 (0 - 56)

14.81 ± 9.62 (0 - 35)

0.576

Unknown

3

0

3

onset_age

145

35.64 ± 13.87 (10 - 65)

35.10 ± 12.56 (10 - 61)

36.21 ± 15.18 (14 - 65)

0.632

Unknown

5

2

3

1Mean ± SD (Range); n (%)

2Two Sample t-test; Pearson's Chi-squared test; Fisher's exact test

Measurement

Table

Characteristic

N

Overall, N = 1501

control, N = 761

treatment, N = 741

p-value2

recovery_stage_a

150

3.15 ± 1.16 (1 - 5)

3.21 ± 1.21 (1 - 5)

3.09 ± 1.10 (1 - 5)

0.541

recovery_stage_b

150

17.88 ± 2.77 (8 - 24)

17.84 ± 2.88 (8 - 24)

17.92 ± 2.67 (13 - 24)

0.866

ras_confidence

150

29.85 ± 5.06 (15 - 45)

29.68 ± 4.79 (15 - 40)

30.01 ± 5.35 (18 - 45)

0.692

ras_willingness

150

11.78 ± 2.03 (5 - 15)

11.67 ± 2.00 (5 - 15)

11.89 ± 2.06 (7 - 15)

0.506

ras_goal

150

17.35 ± 3.04 (11 - 25)

17.16 ± 2.82 (11 - 24)

17.54 ± 3.26 (11 - 25)

0.443

ras_reliance

150

13.15 ± 2.89 (5 - 20)

13.00 ± 2.74 (5 - 18)

13.31 ± 3.05 (7 - 20)

0.512

ras_domination

150

9.83 ± 2.39 (3 - 15)

10.09 ± 2.30 (3 - 15)

9.57 ± 2.47 (3 - 15)

0.180

symptom

150

29.99 ± 9.12 (14 - 56)

29.83 ± 9.38 (14 - 55)

30.15 ± 8.91 (15 - 56)

0.831

slof_work

150

22.43 ± 4.81 (10 - 30)

22.82 ± 4.34 (13 - 30)

22.03 ± 5.24 (10 - 30)

0.316

slof_relationship

150

25.08 ± 5.95 (9 - 35)

24.71 ± 5.97 (9 - 35)

25.46 ± 5.94 (11 - 35)

0.443

satisfaction

150

20.34 ± 7.14 (5 - 35)

19.57 ± 6.78 (5 - 33)

21.14 ± 7.45 (5 - 35)

0.179

mhc_emotional

150

10.77 ± 3.80 (3 - 18)

10.53 ± 3.67 (3 - 17)

11.01 ± 3.93 (3 - 18)

0.434

mhc_social

150

14.89 ± 5.59 (5 - 30)

14.63 ± 5.53 (5 - 30)

15.15 ± 5.68 (5 - 29)

0.573

mhc_psychological

150

21.77 ± 6.39 (6 - 36)

21.57 ± 6.06 (7 - 36)

21.99 ± 6.74 (6 - 36)

0.688

resilisnce

150

16.49 ± 4.65 (6 - 30)

16.13 ± 4.13 (6 - 24)

16.86 ± 5.13 (6 - 30)

0.335

social_provision

150

13.47 ± 2.89 (5 - 20)

13.09 ± 2.59 (5 - 20)

13.85 ± 3.13 (5 - 20)

0.107

els_value_living

150

16.91 ± 3.10 (5 - 25)

16.57 ± 2.87 (6 - 22)

17.27 ± 3.30 (5 - 25)

0.165

els_life_fulfill

150

12.69 ± 3.38 (4 - 20)

12.26 ± 3.22 (5 - 19)

13.14 ± 3.51 (4 - 20)

0.115

els

150

29.61 ± 5.90 (9 - 45)

28.83 ± 5.42 (11 - 38)

30.41 ± 6.29 (9 - 45)

0.102

social_connect

150

26.67 ± 9.41 (8 - 48)

26.91 ± 9.07 (8 - 48)

26.42 ± 9.80 (8 - 48)

0.752

shs_agency

150

14.16 ± 5.11 (3 - 24)

13.75 ± 4.70 (3 - 21)

14.58 ± 5.51 (3 - 24)

0.321

shs_pathway

150

15.98 ± 4.01 (4 - 24)

15.57 ± 3.86 (5 - 24)

16.41 ± 4.14 (4 - 24)

0.201

shs

150

30.14 ± 8.71 (7 - 48)

29.32 ± 8.17 (8 - 45)

30.99 ± 9.22 (7 - 48)

0.242

esteem

150

12.56 ± 1.62 (9 - 20)

12.57 ± 1.61 (9 - 18)

12.55 ± 1.64 (10 - 20)

0.965

mlq_search

150

14.78 ± 3.54 (3 - 21)

14.53 ± 3.44 (6 - 21)

15.04 ± 3.64 (3 - 21)

0.375

mlq_presence

150

13.29 ± 4.32 (3 - 21)

13.12 ± 3.97 (4 - 21)

13.47 ± 4.66 (3 - 21)

0.617

mlq

150

28.07 ± 6.92 (6 - 42)

27.64 ± 6.34 (10 - 40)

28.51 ± 7.48 (6 - 42)

0.444

empower

150

19.17 ± 4.21 (6 - 30)

18.86 ± 4.09 (11 - 30)

19.50 ± 4.32 (6 - 30)

0.350

ismi_resistance

150

14.47 ± 2.49 (5 - 20)

14.47 ± 2.14 (10 - 20)

14.47 ± 2.82 (5 - 20)

0.999

ismi_discrimation

150

11.66 ± 3.09 (5 - 20)

11.93 ± 2.95 (5 - 20)

11.38 ± 3.22 (5 - 20)

0.272

sss_affective

150

10.01 ± 3.54 (3 - 18)

9.99 ± 3.47 (3 - 18)

10.03 ± 3.63 (3 - 18)

0.945

sss_behavior

150

9.72 ± 3.72 (3 - 18)

9.86 ± 3.77 (3 - 18)

9.58 ± 3.69 (3 - 18)

0.653

sss_cognitive

150

8.25 ± 3.72 (3 - 18)

8.21 ± 3.69 (3 - 18)

8.28 ± 3.78 (3 - 18)

0.905

sss

150

27.97 ± 10.15 (9 - 54)

28.05 ± 10.06 (9 - 54)

27.89 ± 10.31 (9 - 54)

0.923

1Mean ± SD (Range)

2Two Sample t-test

Plot

## Warning: Removed 2 rows containing non-finite values (`stat_density()`).
## Warning: Removed 1 rows containing missing values (`geom_vline()`).

Data analysis

Table

Group

Characteristic

Beta

SE1

95% CI1

p-value

recovery_stage_a

(Intercept)

3.21

0.133

2.95, 3.47

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-0.116

0.190

-0.487, 0.256

0.541

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.075

0.208

-0.334, 0.483

0.720

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.435

0.299

-0.151, 1.02

0.149

Pseudo R square

0.020

recovery_stage_b

(Intercept)

17.8

0.325

17.2, 18.5

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.077

0.463

-0.830, 0.984

0.868

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-0.418

0.461

-1.32, 0.486

0.367

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.926

0.662

-0.370, 2.22

0.165

Pseudo R square

0.010

ras_confidence

(Intercept)

29.7

0.583

28.5, 30.8

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.329

0.829

-1.30, 1.95

0.692

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.967

0.643

-0.293, 2.23

0.137

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.826

0.923

-0.982, 2.63

0.373

Pseudo R square

0.020

ras_willingness

(Intercept)

11.7

0.232

11.2, 12.1

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.221

0.331

-0.427, 0.869

0.505

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-0.351

0.258

-0.857, 0.155

0.178

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.634

0.370

-0.092, 1.36

0.091

Pseudo R square

0.016

ras_goal

(Intercept)

17.2

0.357

16.5, 17.9

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.383

0.509

-0.615, 1.38

0.453

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.056

0.453

-0.832, 0.943

0.902

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.853

0.650

-0.421, 2.13

0.193

Pseudo R square

0.019

ras_reliance

(Intercept)

13.0

0.326

12.4, 13.6

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.311

0.464

-0.599, 1.22

0.504

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.374

0.355

-0.321, 1.07

0.295

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.850

0.509

-0.148, 1.85

0.099

Pseudo R square

0.030

ras_domination

(Intercept)

10.1

0.268

9.57, 10.6

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-0.525

0.381

-1.27, 0.223

0.171

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-0.292

0.363

-1.00, 0.418

0.422

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

1.32

0.520

0.305, 2.34

0.013

Pseudo R square

0.022

symptom

(Intercept)

29.8

1.052

27.8, 31.9

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.320

1.497

-2.62, 3.25

0.831

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-0.611

0.932

-2.44, 1.22

0.514

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-1.11

1.339

-3.73, 1.51

0.410

Pseudo R square

0.004

slof_work

(Intercept)

22.8

0.550

21.7, 23.9

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-0.789

0.783

-2.32, 0.746

0.315

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-0.508

0.604

-1.69, 0.676

0.403

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.737

0.867

-0.962, 2.44

0.398

Pseudo R square

0.005

slof_relationship

(Intercept)

24.7

0.681

23.4, 26.0

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.749

0.970

-1.15, 2.65

0.441

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-0.496

0.718

-1.90, 0.910

0.491

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.939

1.030

-1.08, 2.96

0.365

Pseudo R square

0.009

satisfaction

(Intercept)

19.6

0.821

18.0, 21.2

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

1.57

1.169

-0.721, 3.86

0.181

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.768

0.872

-0.941, 2.48

0.381

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.514

1.251

-1.94, 2.97

0.683

Pseudo R square

0.019

mhc_emotional

(Intercept)

10.5

0.431

9.68, 11.4

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.487

0.613

-0.714, 1.69

0.428

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.288

0.428

-0.551, 1.13

0.503

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.002

0.614

-1.21, 1.20

0.998

Pseudo R square

0.005

mhc_social

(Intercept)

14.6

0.663

13.3, 15.9

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.517

0.944

-1.33, 2.37

0.585

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.539

0.727

-0.887, 1.96

0.461

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.533

1.044

-1.51, 2.58

0.611

Pseudo R square

0.008

mhc_psychological

(Intercept)

21.6

0.758

20.1, 23.1

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.421

1.079

-1.69, 2.54

0.697

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.881

0.837

-0.760, 2.52

0.296

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.025

1.202

-2.38, 2.33

0.983

Pseudo R square

0.005

resilisnce

(Intercept)

16.1

0.522

15.1, 17.2

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.733

0.743

-0.723, 2.19

0.325

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.372

0.616

-0.835, 1.58

0.547

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

1.46

0.884

-0.272, 3.19

0.103

Pseudo R square

0.033

social_provision

(Intercept)

13.1

0.331

12.4, 13.7

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.759

0.471

-0.163, 1.68

0.108

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-0.606

0.399

-1.39, 0.177

0.133

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.881

0.573

-0.242, 2.00

0.128

Pseudo R square

0.036

els_value_living

(Intercept)

16.6

0.359

15.9, 17.3

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.704

0.511

-0.297, 1.71

0.170

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.399

0.407

-0.400, 1.20

0.331

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.032

0.585

-1.11, 1.18

0.956

Pseudo R square

0.016

els_life_fulfill

(Intercept)

12.3

0.380

11.5, 13.0

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.872

0.541

-0.188, 1.93

0.109

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.522

0.375

-0.212, 1.26

0.168

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.059

0.538

-1.11, 0.995

0.912

Pseudo R square

0.021

els

(Intercept)

28.8

0.676

27.5, 30.2

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

1.58

0.962

-0.309, 3.46

0.103

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.923

0.643

-0.337, 2.18

0.155

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.098

0.923

-1.91, 1.71

0.916

Pseudo R square

0.021

social_connect

(Intercept)

26.9

1.093

24.8, 29.1

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-0.489

1.557

-3.54, 2.56

0.754

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.607

1.040

-1.43, 2.65

0.561

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-3.31

1.493

-6.23, -0.380

0.030

Pseudo R square

0.015

shs_agency

(Intercept)

13.8

0.585

12.6, 14.9

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.831

0.833

-0.802, 2.46

0.320

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.202

0.580

-0.934, 1.34

0.728

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.655

0.832

-0.976, 2.29

0.434

Pseudo R square

0.013

shs_pathway

(Intercept)

15.6

0.452

14.7, 16.5

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.840

0.644

-0.422, 2.10

0.194

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.251

0.466

-0.663, 1.16

0.592

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.013

0.670

-1.32, 1.30

0.985

Pseudo R square

0.012

shs

(Intercept)

29.3

0.988

27.4, 31.3

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

1.67

1.407

-1.09, 4.43

0.237

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.442

0.964

-1.45, 2.33

0.648

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.635

1.384

-2.08, 3.35

0.648

Pseudo R square

0.013

esteem

(Intercept)

12.6

0.175

12.2, 12.9

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-0.012

0.249

-0.500, 0.476

0.962

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.171

0.265

-0.349, 0.691

0.521

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.007

0.380

-0.739, 0.752

0.986

Pseudo R square

0.003

mlq_search

(Intercept)

14.5

0.402

13.7, 15.3

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.514

0.572

-0.608, 1.64

0.370

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.438

0.512

-0.565, 1.44

0.394

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.669

0.734

-2.11, 0.770

0.365

Pseudo R square

0.004

mlq_presence

(Intercept)

13.1

0.491

12.2, 14.1

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.355

0.699

-1.02, 1.73

0.613

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.593

0.561

-0.507, 1.69

0.294

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.165

0.805

-1.74, 1.41

0.838

Pseudo R square

0.004

mlq

(Intercept)

27.6

0.797

26.1, 29.2

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.869

1.135

-1.36, 3.09

0.445

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

1.02

0.927

-0.797, 2.84

0.275

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.806

1.331

-3.42, 1.80

0.546

Pseudo R square

0.004

empower

(Intercept)

18.9

0.479

17.9, 19.8

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.645

0.682

-0.692, 1.98

0.346

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.696

0.480

-0.246, 1.64

0.152

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.760

0.690

-2.11, 0.592

0.274

Pseudo R square

0.005

ismi_resistance

(Intercept)

14.5

0.282

13.9, 15.0

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-0.001

0.402

-0.788, 0.787

0.999

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-0.142

0.380

-0.887, 0.603

0.709

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.861

0.545

-0.208, 1.93

0.118

Pseudo R square

0.012

ismi_discrimation

(Intercept)

11.9

0.356

11.2, 12.6

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-0.556

0.506

-1.55, 0.437

0.274

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-0.151

0.395

-0.924, 0.623

0.704

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.113

0.566

-1.22, 0.997

0.842

Pseudo R square

0.010

sss_affective

(Intercept)

9.99

0.403

9.20, 10.8

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.040

0.574

-1.09, 1.17

0.944

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-0.106

0.436

-0.962, 0.749

0.808

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-1.07

0.626

-2.30, 0.153

0.090

Pseudo R square

0.013

sss_behavior

(Intercept)

9.86

0.424

9.02, 10.7

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-0.274

0.603

-1.46, 0.908

0.650

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-0.238

0.455

-1.13, 0.654

0.602

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.463

0.653

-1.74, 0.818

0.481

Pseudo R square

0.007

sss_cognitive

(Intercept)

8.21

0.421

7.39, 9.04

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.073

0.599

-1.10, 1.25

0.903

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.304

0.466

-0.610, 1.22

0.516

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-1.19

0.670

-2.50, 0.120

0.079

Pseudo R square

0.008

sss

(Intercept)

28.1

1.160

25.8, 30.3

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-0.161

1.651

-3.40, 3.08

0.923

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-0.122

1.138

-2.35, 2.11

0.915

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-2.53

1.634

-5.73, 0.675

0.126

Pseudo R square

0.009

1SE = Standard Error, CI = Confidence Interval

Text

recovery_stage_a

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict recovery_stage_a with group and time_point (formula: recovery_stage_a ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.34) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 3.21 (95% CI [2.95, 3.47], t(210) = 24.12, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.12, 95% CI [-0.49, 0.26], t(210) = -0.61, p = 0.541; Std. beta = -0.10, 95% CI [-0.42, 0.22])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-0.33, 0.48], t(210) = 0.36, p = 0.719; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.29, 0.41])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.43, 95% CI [-0.15, 1.02], t(210) = 1.45, p = 0.146; Std. beta = 0.37, 95% CI [-0.13, 0.87])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

recovery_stage_b

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict recovery_stage_b with group and time_point (formula: recovery_stage_b ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.48) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 9.67e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 17.84 (95% CI [17.21, 18.48], t(210) = 54.89, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.83, 0.98], t(210) = 0.17, p = 0.868; Std. beta = 0.03, 95% CI [-0.29, 0.35])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.42, 95% CI [-1.32, 0.49], t(210) = -0.91, p = 0.364; Std. beta = -0.15, 95% CI [-0.47, 0.17])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.93, 95% CI [-0.37, 2.22], t(210) = 1.40, p = 0.161; Std. beta = 0.33, 95% CI [-0.13, 0.79])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ras_confidence

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_confidence with group and time_point (formula: ras_confidence ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.71) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.68 (95% CI [28.54, 30.83], t(210) = 50.96, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.33, 95% CI [-1.30, 1.95], t(210) = 0.40, p = 0.691; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.25, 0.38])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.97, 95% CI [-0.29, 2.23], t(210) = 1.50, p = 0.132; Std. beta = 0.19, 95% CI [-0.06, 0.44])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.83, 95% CI [-0.98, 2.63], t(210) = 0.90, p = 0.370; Std. beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-0.19, 0.52])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ras_willingness

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_willingness with group and time_point (formula: ras_willingness ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.70) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 11.67 (95% CI [11.22, 12.13], t(210) = 50.26, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.22, 95% CI [-0.43, 0.87], t(210) = 0.67, p = 0.504; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.21, 0.43])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.35, 95% CI [-0.86, 0.15], t(210) = -1.36, p = 0.174; Std. beta = -0.17, 95% CI [-0.43, 0.08])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.63, 95% CI [-0.09, 1.36], t(210) = 1.71, p = 0.087; Std. beta = 0.32, 95% CI [-0.05, 0.68])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ras_goal

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_goal with group and time_point (formula: ras_goal ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.60) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 17.16 (95% CI [16.46, 17.86], t(210) = 48.01, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.38, 95% CI [-0.61, 1.38], t(210) = 0.75, p = 0.452; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.20, 0.44])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.83, 0.94], t(210) = 0.12, p = 0.902; Std. beta = 0.02, 95% CI [-0.27, 0.30])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.85, 95% CI [-0.42, 2.13], t(210) = 1.31, p = 0.189; Std. beta = 0.27, 95% CI [-0.13, 0.68])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ras_reliance

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_reliance with group and time_point (formula: ras_reliance ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.72) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.00 (95% CI [12.36, 13.64], t(210) = 39.87, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.31, 95% CI [-0.60, 1.22], t(210) = 0.67, p = 0.503; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.21, 0.43])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.37, 95% CI [-0.32, 1.07], t(210) = 1.05, p = 0.292; Std. beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-0.11, 0.37])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.85, 95% CI [-0.15, 1.85], t(210) = 1.67, p = 0.095; Std. beta = 0.30, 95% CI [-0.05, 0.64])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ras_domination

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_domination with group and time_point (formula: ras_domination ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.54) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.09 (95% CI [9.57, 10.62], t(210) = 37.66, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.52, 95% CI [-1.27, 0.22], t(210) = -1.37, p = 0.169; Std. beta = -0.23, 95% CI [-0.55, 0.10])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.29, 95% CI [-1.00, 0.42], t(210) = -0.81, p = 0.420; Std. beta = -0.13, 95% CI [-0.43, 0.18])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 1.32, 95% CI [0.31, 2.34], t(210) = 2.55, p = 0.011; Std. beta = 0.57, 95% CI [0.13, 1.01])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

symptom

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict symptom with group and time_point (formula: symptom ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.82) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 4.13e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.83 (95% CI [27.77, 31.89], t(210) = 28.36, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.32, 95% CI [-2.62, 3.25], t(210) = 0.21, p = 0.831; Std. beta = 0.03, 95% CI [-0.28, 0.35])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.61, 95% CI [-2.44, 1.22], t(210) = -0.66, p = 0.512; Std. beta = -0.07, 95% CI [-0.26, 0.13])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.11, 95% CI [-3.73, 1.51], t(210) = -0.83, p = 0.407; Std. beta = -0.12, 95% CI [-0.40, 0.16])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

slof_work

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict slof_work with group and time_point (formula: slof_work ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.71) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 4.90e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 22.82 (95% CI [21.74, 23.89], t(210) = 41.48, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.79, 95% CI [-2.32, 0.75], t(210) = -1.01, p = 0.314; Std. beta = -0.16, 95% CI [-0.49, 0.16])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.51, 95% CI [-1.69, 0.68], t(210) = -0.84, p = 0.400; Std. beta = -0.11, 95% CI [-0.35, 0.14])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.74, 95% CI [-0.96, 2.44], t(210) = 0.85, p = 0.395; Std. beta = 0.15, 95% CI [-0.20, 0.51])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

slof_relationship

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict slof_relationship with group and time_point (formula: slof_relationship ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.73) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 8.89e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 24.71 (95% CI [23.38, 26.05], t(210) = 36.27, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.75, 95% CI [-1.15, 2.65], t(210) = 0.77, p = 0.440; Std. beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-0.19, 0.45])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.50, 95% CI [-1.90, 0.91], t(210) = -0.69, p = 0.489; Std. beta = -0.08, 95% CI [-0.32, 0.15])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.94, 95% CI [-1.08, 2.96], t(210) = 0.91, p = 0.362; Std. beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-0.18, 0.50])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

satisfaction

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict satisfaction with group and time_point (formula: satisfaction ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.73) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 19.57 (95% CI [17.96, 21.17], t(210) = 23.84, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.57, 95% CI [-0.72, 3.86], t(210) = 1.34, p = 0.179; Std. beta = 0.22, 95% CI [-0.10, 0.54])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.77, 95% CI [-0.94, 2.48], t(210) = 0.88, p = 0.378; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.13, 0.35])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.51, 95% CI [-1.94, 2.97], t(210) = 0.41, p = 0.681; Std. beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-0.27, 0.41])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

mhc_emotional

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_emotional with group and time_point (formula: mhc_emotional ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.76) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 5.40e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.53 (95% CI [9.68, 11.37], t(210) = 24.45, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.49, 95% CI [-0.71, 1.69], t(210) = 0.79, p = 0.427; Std. beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-0.19, 0.45])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.29, 95% CI [-0.55, 1.13], t(210) = 0.67, p = 0.501; Std. beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.15, 0.30])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.91e-03, 95% CI [-1.21, 1.20], t(210) = -3.11e-03, p = 0.998; Std. beta = -5.08e-04, 95% CI [-0.32, 0.32])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

mhc_social

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_social with group and time_point (formula: mhc_social ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.71) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 7.88e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 14.63 (95% CI [13.33, 15.93], t(210) = 22.07, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.52, 95% CI [-1.33, 2.37], t(210) = 0.55, p = 0.584; Std. beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.23, 0.41])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.54, 95% CI [-0.89, 1.96], t(210) = 0.74, p = 0.459; Std. beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.15, 0.34])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.53, 95% CI [-1.51, 2.58], t(210) = 0.51, p = 0.610; Std. beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.26, 0.45])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

mhc_psychological

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_psychological with group and time_point (formula: mhc_psychological ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.70) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 4.62e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 21.57 (95% CI [20.08, 23.05], t(210) = 28.46, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.42, 95% CI [-1.69, 2.54], t(210) = 0.39, p = 0.697; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.26, 0.39])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.88, 95% CI [-0.76, 2.52], t(210) = 1.05, p = 0.293; Std. beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-0.12, 0.38])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.03, 95% CI [-2.38, 2.33], t(210) = -0.02, p = 0.983; Std. beta = -3.88e-03, 95% CI [-0.36, 0.36])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

resilisnce

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict resilisnce with group and time_point (formula: resilisnce ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.67) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 16.13 (95% CI [15.11, 17.15], t(210) = 30.91, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.73, 95% CI [-0.72, 2.19], t(210) = 0.99, p = 0.324; Std. beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-0.16, 0.48])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.37, 95% CI [-0.84, 1.58], t(210) = 0.60, p = 0.546; Std. beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.18, 0.35])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.46, 95% CI [-0.27, 3.19], t(210) = 1.65, p = 0.099; Std. beta = 0.32, 95% CI [-0.06, 0.70])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

social_provision

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict social_provision with group and time_point (formula: social_provision ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.65) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.09 (95% CI [12.44, 13.74], t(210) = 39.61, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.76, 95% CI [-0.16, 1.68], t(210) = 1.61, p = 0.107; Std. beta = 0.26, 95% CI [-0.06, 0.57])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.61, 95% CI [-1.39, 0.18], t(210) = -1.52, p = 0.129; Std. beta = -0.21, 95% CI [-0.47, 0.06])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.88, 95% CI [-0.24, 2.00], t(210) = 1.54, p = 0.124; Std. beta = 0.30, 95% CI [-0.08, 0.68])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

els_value_living

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els_value_living with group and time_point (formula: els_value_living ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.69) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 16.57 (95% CI [15.86, 17.27], t(210) = 46.14, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.70, 95% CI [-0.30, 1.71], t(210) = 1.38, p = 0.168; Std. beta = 0.22, 95% CI [-0.09, 0.54])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.40, 95% CI [-0.40, 1.20], t(210) = 0.98, p = 0.328; Std. beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-0.13, 0.38])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.03, 95% CI [-1.11, 1.18], t(210) = 0.06, p = 0.956; Std. beta = 0.01, 95% CI [-0.35, 0.37])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

els_life_fulfill

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els_life_fulfill with group and time_point (formula: els_life_fulfill ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.77) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.26 (95% CI [11.52, 13.01], t(210) = 32.28, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.87, 95% CI [-0.19, 1.93], t(210) = 1.61, p = 0.107; Std. beta = 0.26, 95% CI [-0.06, 0.58])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.52, 95% CI [-0.21, 1.26], t(210) = 1.39, p = 0.164; Std. beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-0.06, 0.38])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.06, 95% CI [-1.11, 1.00], t(210) = -0.11, p = 0.912; Std. beta = -0.02, 95% CI [-0.34, 0.30])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

els

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els with group and time_point (formula: els ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.79) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 28.83 (95% CI [27.50, 30.15], t(210) = 42.66, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.58, 95% CI [-0.31, 3.46], t(210) = 1.64, p = 0.101; Std. beta = 0.27, 95% CI [-0.05, 0.59])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.92, 95% CI [-0.34, 2.18], t(210) = 1.44, p = 0.151; Std. beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-0.06, 0.37])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.10, 95% CI [-1.91, 1.71], t(210) = -0.11, p = 0.915; Std. beta = -0.02, 95% CI [-0.32, 0.29])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

social_connect

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict social_connect with group and time_point (formula: social_connect ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.79) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 26.91 (95% CI [24.76, 29.05], t(210) = 24.61, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.49, 95% CI [-3.54, 2.56], t(210) = -0.31, p = 0.753; Std. beta = -0.05, 95% CI [-0.37, 0.27])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.61, 95% CI [-1.43, 2.65], t(210) = 0.58, p = 0.560; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.15, 0.27])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -3.31, 95% CI [-6.23, -0.38], t(210) = -2.21, p = 0.027; Std. beta = -0.34, 95% CI [-0.65, -0.04])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

shs_agency

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs_agency with group and time_point (formula: shs_agency ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.77) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.75 (95% CI [12.60, 14.90], t(210) = 23.49, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.83, 95% CI [-0.80, 2.46], t(210) = 1.00, p = 0.319; Std. beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-0.16, 0.49])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.20, 95% CI [-0.93, 1.34], t(210) = 0.35, p = 0.727; Std. beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-0.18, 0.26])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.66, 95% CI [-0.98, 2.29], t(210) = 0.79, p = 0.431; Std. beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-0.19, 0.45])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

shs_pathway

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs_pathway with group and time_point (formula: shs_pathway ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.75) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 15.57 (95% CI [14.68, 16.45], t(210) = 34.43, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.84, 95% CI [-0.42, 2.10], t(210) = 1.30, p = 0.192; Std. beta = 0.21, 95% CI [-0.11, 0.53])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.25, 95% CI [-0.66, 1.16], t(210) = 0.54, p = 0.591; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.17, 0.30])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.01, 95% CI [-1.32, 1.30], t(210) = -0.02, p = 0.985; Std. beta = -3.22e-03, 95% CI [-0.34, 0.33])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

shs

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs with group and time_point (formula: shs ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.78) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.32 (95% CI [27.38, 31.25], t(210) = 29.66, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.67, 95% CI [-1.09, 4.43], t(210) = 1.19, p = 0.235; Std. beta = 0.19, 95% CI [-0.13, 0.52])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.44, 95% CI [-1.45, 2.33], t(210) = 0.46, p = 0.647; Std. beta = 0.05, 95% CI [-0.17, 0.27])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.64, 95% CI [-2.08, 3.35], t(210) = 0.46, p = 0.646; Std. beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-0.24, 0.39])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

esteem

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict esteem with group and time_point (formula: esteem ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.38) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 2.79e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.57 (95% CI [12.22, 12.91], t(210) = 71.84, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.01, 95% CI [-0.50, 0.48], t(210) = -0.05, p = 0.962; Std. beta = -7.80e-03, 95% CI [-0.33, 0.32])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-0.35, 0.69], t(210) = 0.65, p = 0.519; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.23, 0.46])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 6.64e-03, 95% CI [-0.74, 0.75], t(210) = 0.02, p = 0.986; Std. beta = 4.41e-03, 95% CI [-0.49, 0.50])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

mlq_search

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq_search with group and time_point (formula: mlq_search ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.59) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 4.09e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 14.53 (95% CI [13.74, 15.31], t(210) = 36.13, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.51, 95% CI [-0.61, 1.64], t(210) = 0.90, p = 0.369; Std. beta = 0.15, 95% CI [-0.18, 0.47])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.44, 95% CI [-0.56, 1.44], t(210) = 0.86, p = 0.392; Std. beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-0.16, 0.42])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.67, 95% CI [-2.11, 0.77], t(210) = -0.91, p = 0.362; Std. beta = -0.19, 95% CI [-0.61, 0.22])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

mlq_presence

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq_presence with group and time_point (formula: mlq_presence ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.68) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 4.34e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.12 (95% CI [12.16, 14.08], t(210) = 26.70, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.35, 95% CI [-1.02, 1.73], t(210) = 0.51, p = 0.612; Std. beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.24, 0.41])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.59, 95% CI [-0.51, 1.69], t(210) = 1.06, p = 0.291; Std. beta = 0.14, 95% CI [-0.12, 0.40])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.17, 95% CI [-1.74, 1.41], t(210) = -0.21, p = 0.837; Std. beta = -0.04, 95% CI [-0.41, 0.33])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

mlq

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq with group and time_point (formula: mlq ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.67) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 4.42e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 27.64 (95% CI [26.08, 29.21], t(210) = 34.68, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.87, 95% CI [-1.36, 3.09], t(210) = 0.77, p = 0.444; Std. beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-0.20, 0.45])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.02, 95% CI [-0.80, 2.84], t(210) = 1.10, p = 0.271; Std. beta = 0.15, 95% CI [-0.12, 0.41])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.81, 95% CI [-3.42, 1.80], t(210) = -0.61, p = 0.545; Std. beta = -0.12, 95% CI [-0.49, 0.26])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

empower

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict empower with group and time_point (formula: empower ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.76) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 5.45e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 18.86 (95% CI [17.92, 19.79], t(210) = 39.35, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.64, 95% CI [-0.69, 1.98], t(210) = 0.95, p = 0.345; Std. beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-0.17, 0.48])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.70, 95% CI [-0.25, 1.64], t(210) = 1.45, p = 0.147; Std. beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-0.06, 0.40])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.76, 95% CI [-2.11, 0.59], t(210) = -1.10, p = 0.271; Std. beta = -0.18, 95% CI [-0.51, 0.14])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ismi_resistance

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ismi_resistance with group and time_point (formula: ismi_resistance ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.54) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 14.47 (95% CI [13.92, 15.03], t(210) = 51.28, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -7.11e-04, 95% CI [-0.79, 0.79], t(210) = -1.77e-03, p = 0.999; Std. beta = -2.87e-04, 95% CI [-0.32, 0.32])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.14, 95% CI [-0.89, 0.60], t(210) = -0.37, p = 0.708; Std. beta = -0.06, 95% CI [-0.36, 0.24])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.86, 95% CI [-0.21, 1.93], t(210) = 1.58, p = 0.114; Std. beta = 0.35, 95% CI [-0.08, 0.78])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ismi_discrimation

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ismi_discrimation with group and time_point (formula: ismi_discrimation ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.70) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 9.96e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 11.93 (95% CI [11.24, 12.63], t(210) = 33.55, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.56, 95% CI [-1.55, 0.44], t(210) = -1.10, p = 0.272; Std. beta = -0.18, 95% CI [-0.50, 0.14])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.15, 95% CI [-0.92, 0.62], t(210) = -0.38, p = 0.703; Std. beta = -0.05, 95% CI [-0.30, 0.20])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.11, 95% CI [-1.22, 1.00], t(210) = -0.20, p = 0.842; Std. beta = -0.04, 95% CI [-0.39, 0.32])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

sss_affective

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_affective with group and time_point (formula: sss_affective ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.72) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 9.99 (95% CI [9.20, 10.78], t(210) = 24.75, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-1.09, 1.17], t(210) = 0.07, p = 0.944; Std. beta = 0.01, 95% CI [-0.30, 0.33])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.11, 95% CI [-0.96, 0.75], t(210) = -0.24, p = 0.807; Std. beta = -0.03, 95% CI [-0.27, 0.21])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.07, 95% CI [-2.30, 0.15], t(210) = -1.72, p = 0.086; Std. beta = -0.30, 95% CI [-0.65, 0.04])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

sss_behavior

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_behavior with group and time_point (formula: sss_behavior ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.72) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 7.28e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 9.86 (95% CI [9.02, 10.69], t(210) = 23.26, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.27, 95% CI [-1.46, 0.91], t(210) = -0.45, p = 0.649; Std. beta = -0.07, 95% CI [-0.39, 0.24])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.24, 95% CI [-1.13, 0.65], t(210) = -0.52, p = 0.601; Std. beta = -0.06, 95% CI [-0.30, 0.18])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.46, 95% CI [-1.74, 0.82], t(210) = -0.71, p = 0.478; Std. beta = -0.12, 95% CI [-0.47, 0.22])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

sss_cognitive

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_cognitive with group and time_point (formula: sss_cognitive ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.70) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 8.33e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 8.21 (95% CI [7.39, 9.04], t(210) = 19.51, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-1.10, 1.25], t(210) = 0.12, p = 0.903; Std. beta = 0.02, 95% CI [-0.30, 0.34])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.30, 95% CI [-0.61, 1.22], t(210) = 0.65, p = 0.514; Std. beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.16, 0.33])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.19, 95% CI [-2.50, 0.12], t(210) = -1.78, p = 0.075; Std. beta = -0.32, 95% CI [-0.68, 0.03])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

sss

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss with group and time_point (formula: sss ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.77) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 9.15e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 28.05 (95% CI [25.78, 30.33], t(210) = 24.19, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.16, 95% CI [-3.40, 3.08], t(210) = -0.10, p = 0.922; Std. beta = -0.02, 95% CI [-0.33, 0.30])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.12, 95% CI [-2.35, 2.11], t(210) = -0.11, p = 0.915; Std. beta = -0.01, 95% CI [-0.23, 0.21])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -2.53, 95% CI [-5.73, 0.68], t(210) = -1.55, p = 0.122; Std. beta = -0.25, 95% CI [-0.56, 0.07])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

Likelihood ratio tests

outcome

model

npar

AIC

BIC

logLik

deviance

Chisq

Df

p

recovery_stage_a

null

3

677.586

687.711

-335.793

671.586

recovery_stage_a

random

6

677.839

698.091

-332.920

665.839

5.746

3

0.125

recovery_stage_b

null

3

1,050.741

1,060.867

-522.371

1,044.741

recovery_stage_b

random

6

1,054.203

1,074.454

-521.101

1,042.203

2.538

3

0.468

ras_confidence

null

3

1,281.787

1,291.913

-637.894

1,275.787

ras_confidence

random

6

1,277.903

1,298.155

-632.952

1,265.903

9.884

3

0.020

ras_willingness

null

3

879.802

889.928

-436.901

873.802

ras_willingness

random

6

881.405

901.657

-434.702

869.405

4.397

3

0.222

ras_goal

null

3

1,082.286

1,092.412

-538.143

1,076.286

ras_goal

random

6

1,082.957

1,103.209

-535.478

1,070.957

5.329

3

0.149

ras_reliance

null

3

1,032.633

1,042.759

-513.316

1,026.633

ras_reliance

random

6

1,025.491

1,045.743

-506.745

1,013.491

13.142

3

0.004

ras_domination

null

3

968.029

978.155

-481.014

962.029

ras_domination

random

6

965.782

986.033

-476.891

953.782

8.247

3

0.041

symptom

null

3

1,503.873

1,513.999

-748.936

1,497.873

symptom

random

6

1,506.226

1,526.478

-747.113

1,494.226

3.647

3

0.302

slof_work

null

3

1,248.022

1,258.148

-621.011

1,242.022

slof_work

random

6

1,252.500

1,272.751

-620.250

1,240.500

1.522

3

0.677

slof_relationship

null

3

1,335.934

1,346.059

-664.967

1,329.934

slof_relationship

random

6

1,339.993

1,360.244

-663.996

1,327.993

1.941

3

0.585

satisfaction

null

3

1,420.473

1,430.599

-707.237

1,414.473

satisfaction

random

6

1,421.400

1,441.652

-704.700

1,409.400

5.073

3

0.167

mhc_emotional

null

3

1,130.181

1,140.307

-562.090

1,124.181

mhc_emotional

random

6

1,134.623

1,154.875

-561.312

1,122.623

1.558

3

0.669

mhc_social

null

3

1,330.213

1,340.339

-662.107

1,324.213

mhc_social

random

6

1,333.093

1,353.344

-660.546

1,321.093

3.121

3

0.373

mhc_psychological

null

3

1,387.930

1,398.055

-690.965

1,381.930

mhc_psychological

random

6

1,391.650

1,411.902

-689.825

1,379.650

2.279

3

0.517

resilisnce

null

3

1,243.138

1,253.263

-618.569

1,237.138

resilisnce

random

6

1,238.394

1,258.646

-613.197

1,226.394

10.743

3

0.013

social_provision

null

3

1,045.253

1,055.378

-519.626

1,039.253

social_provision

random

6

1,043.771

1,064.023

-515.886

1,031.771

7.482

3

0.058

els_value_living

null

3

1,070.267

1,080.392

-532.133

1,064.267

els_value_living

random

6

1,072.142

1,092.393

-530.071

1,060.142

4.125

3

0.248

els_life_fulfill

null

3

1,079.656

1,089.782

-536.828

1,073.656

els_life_fulfill

random

6

1,079.604

1,099.856

-533.802

1,067.604

6.051

3

0.109

els

null

3

1,324.265

1,334.391

-659.132

1,318.265

els

random

6

1,323.898

1,344.150

-655.949

1,311.898

6.367

3

0.095

social_connect

null

3

1,533.144

1,543.270

-763.572

1,527.144

social_connect

random

6

1,531.807

1,552.059

-759.904

1,519.807

7.337

3

0.062

shs_agency

null

3

1,264.552

1,274.678

-629.276

1,258.552

shs_agency

random

6

1,266.859

1,287.110

-627.429

1,254.859

3.694

3

0.296

shs_pathway

null

3

1,156.640

1,166.766

-575.320

1,150.640

shs_pathway

random

6

1,160.301

1,180.552

-574.150

1,148.301

2.339

3

0.505

shs

null

3

1,488.472

1,498.597

-741.236

1,482.472

shs

random

6

1,491.298

1,511.550

-739.649

1,479.298

3.173

3

0.366

esteem

null

3

787.762

797.888

-390.881

781.762

esteem

random

6

792.903

813.155

-390.452

780.903

0.859

3

0.835

mlq_search

null

3

1,129.711

1,139.837

-561.856

1,123.711

mlq_search

random

6

1,134.354

1,154.605

-561.177

1,122.354

1.358

3

0.715

mlq_presence

null

3

1,204.251

1,214.376

-599.125

1,198.251

mlq_presence

random

6

1,208.342

1,228.593

-598.171

1,196.342

1.909

3

0.592

mlq

null

3

1,415.300

1,425.425

-704.650

1,409.300

mlq

random

6

1,419.633

1,439.885

-703.817

1,407.633

1.666

3

0.644

empower

null

3

1,178.527

1,188.652

-586.263

1,172.527

empower

random

6

1,181.886

1,202.137

-584.943

1,169.886

2.641

3

0.450

ismi_resistance

null

3

985.567

995.692

-489.783

979.567

ismi_resistance

random

6

987.689

1,007.941

-487.845

975.689

3.877

3

0.275

ismi_discrimation

null

3

1,061.476

1,071.602

-527.738

1,055.476

ismi_discrimation

random

6

1,065.501

1,085.753

-526.751

1,053.501

1.974

3

0.578

sss_affective

null

3

1,117.945

1,128.071

-555.973

1,111.945

sss_affective

random

6

1,116.835

1,137.086

-552.417

1,104.835

7.111

3

0.068

sss_behavior

null

3

1,134.093

1,144.219

-564.046

1,128.093

sss_behavior

random

6

1,137.115

1,157.367

-562.558

1,125.115

2.977

3

0.395

sss_cognitive

null

3

1,135.955

1,146.081

-564.978

1,129.955

sss_cognitive

random

6

1,137.935

1,158.187

-562.968

1,125.935

4.020

3

0.259

sss

null

3

1,560.506

1,570.632

-777.253

1,554.506

sss

random

6

1,561.139

1,581.391

-774.570

1,549.139

5.367

3

0.147

Post hoc analysis

Table

outcome

time

control

treatment

between

n

estimate

within es

n

estimate

within es

p

es

recovery_stage_a

1st

76

3.21 ± 1.16

74

3.09 ± 1.16

0.541

0.122

recovery_stage_a

2nd

34

3.29 ± 1.13

-0.079

32

3.60 ± 1.13

-0.535

0.255

-0.335

recovery_stage_b

1st

76

17.84 ± 2.83

74

17.92 ± 2.83

0.868

-0.037

recovery_stage_b

2nd

34

17.42 ± 2.67

0.203

32

18.43 ± 2.66

-0.247

0.128

-0.488

ras_confidence

1st

76

29.68 ± 5.08

74

30.01 ± 5.08

0.692

-0.119

ras_confidence

2nd

34

30.65 ± 4.34

-0.350

32

31.81 ± 4.32

-0.648

0.280

-0.418

ras_willingness

1st

76

11.67 ± 2.02

74

11.89 ± 2.02

0.505

-0.199

ras_willingness

2nd

34

11.32 ± 1.73

0.316

32

12.17 ± 1.73

-0.255

0.046

-0.769

ras_goal

1st

76

17.16 ± 3.12

74

17.54 ± 3.12

0.453

-0.193

ras_goal

2nd

34

17.21 ± 2.80

-0.028

32

18.45 ± 2.80

-0.459

0.075

-0.624

ras_reliance

1st

76

13.00 ± 2.84

74

13.31 ± 2.84

0.504

-0.204

ras_reliance

2nd

34

13.37 ± 2.42

-0.245

32

14.53 ± 2.40

-0.803

0.052

-0.762

ras_domination

1st

76

10.09 ± 2.34

74

9.57 ± 2.34

0.171

0.327

ras_domination

2nd

34

9.80 ± 2.16

0.182

32

10.60 ± 2.15

-0.644

0.133

-0.499

symptom

1st

76

29.83 ± 9.17

74

30.15 ± 9.17

0.831

-0.081

symptom

2nd

34

29.22 ± 7.30

0.155

32

28.43 ± 7.25

0.436

0.660

0.200

slof_work

1st

76

22.82 ± 4.79

74

22.03 ± 4.79

0.315

0.304

slof_work

2nd

34

22.31 ± 4.09

0.196

32

22.26 ± 4.07

-0.088

0.959

0.020

slof_relationship

1st

76

24.71 ± 5.94

74

25.46 ± 5.94

0.441

-0.244

slof_relationship

2nd

34

24.21 ± 4.99

0.161

32

25.90 ± 4.97

-0.144

0.170

-0.549

satisfaction

1st

76

19.57 ± 7.16

74

21.14 ± 7.16

0.181

-0.420

satisfaction

2nd

34

20.33 ± 6.03

-0.205

32

22.42 ± 6.00

-0.343

0.161

-0.557

mhc_emotional

1st

76

10.53 ± 3.75

74

11.01 ± 3.75

0.428

-0.267

mhc_emotional

2nd

34

10.81 ± 3.10

-0.158

32

11.30 ± 3.08

-0.157

0.524

-0.266

mhc_social

1st

76

14.63 ± 5.78

74

15.15 ± 5.78

0.585

-0.165

mhc_social

2nd

34

15.17 ± 4.93

-0.172

32

16.22 ± 4.90

-0.343

0.387

-0.336

mhc_psychological

1st

76

21.57 ± 6.61

74

21.99 ± 6.61

0.697

-0.117

mhc_psychological

2nd

34

22.45 ± 5.65

-0.244

32

22.84 ± 5.62

-0.237

0.776

-0.110

resilisnce

1st

76

16.13 ± 4.55

74

16.86 ± 4.55

0.325

-0.275

resilisnce

2nd

34

16.50 ± 3.99

-0.139

32

18.70 ± 3.97

-0.686

0.026

-0.821

social_provision

1st

76

13.09 ± 2.88

74

13.85 ± 2.88

0.108

-0.437

social_provision

2nd

34

12.49 ± 2.55

0.349

32

14.13 ± 2.54

-0.159

0.009

-0.945

els_value_living

1st

76

16.57 ± 3.13

74

17.27 ± 3.13

0.170

-0.401

els_value_living

2nd

34

16.96 ± 2.70

-0.227

32

17.70 ± 2.69

-0.245

0.268

-0.419

els_life_fulfill

1st

76

12.26 ± 3.31

74

13.14 ± 3.31

0.109

-0.546

els_life_fulfill

2nd

34

12.79 ± 2.72

-0.327

32

13.60 ± 2.71

-0.290

0.226

-0.509

els

1st

76

28.83 ± 5.89

74

30.41 ± 5.89

0.103

-0.577

els

2nd

34

29.75 ± 4.79

-0.338

32

31.23 ± 4.76

-0.302

0.210

-0.541

social_connect

1st

76

26.91 ± 9.53

74

26.42 ± 9.53

0.754

0.111

social_connect

2nd

34

27.51 ± 7.75

-0.137

32

23.72 ± 7.70

0.610

0.047

0.858

shs_agency

1st

76

13.75 ± 5.10

74

14.58 ± 5.10

0.320

-0.336

shs_agency

2nd

34

13.95 ± 4.20

-0.082

32

15.44 ± 4.18

-0.347

0.151

-0.601

shs_pathway

1st

76

15.57 ± 3.94

74

16.41 ± 3.94

0.194

-0.421

shs_pathway

2nd

34

15.82 ± 3.29

-0.126

32

16.64 ± 3.27

-0.119

0.307

-0.414

shs

1st

76

29.32 ± 8.62

74

30.99 ± 8.62

0.237

-0.407

shs

2nd

34

29.76 ± 7.06

-0.108

32

32.06 ± 7.02

-0.262

0.185

-0.561

esteem

1st

76

12.57 ± 1.52

74

12.55 ± 1.52

0.962

0.010

esteem

2nd

34

12.74 ± 1.47

-0.142

32

12.73 ± 1.47

-0.148

0.989

0.004

mlq_search

1st

76

14.53 ± 3.51

74

15.04 ± 3.51

0.370

-0.230

mlq_search

2nd

34

14.96 ± 3.16

-0.196

32

14.81 ± 3.15

0.103

0.842

0.069

mlq_presence

1st

76

13.12 ± 4.28

74

13.47 ± 4.28

0.613

-0.146

mlq_presence

2nd

34

13.71 ± 3.71

-0.245

32

13.90 ± 3.69

-0.176

0.836

-0.078

mlq

1st

76

27.64 ± 6.95

74

28.51 ± 6.95

0.445

-0.216

mlq

2nd

34

28.67 ± 6.05

-0.254

32

28.73 ± 6.03

-0.053

0.967

-0.016

empower

1st

76

18.86 ± 4.18

74

19.50 ± 4.18

0.346

-0.314

empower

2nd

34

19.55 ± 3.45

-0.339

32

19.44 ± 3.43

0.031

0.892

0.056

ismi_resistance

1st

76

14.47 ± 2.46

74

14.47 ± 2.46

0.999

0.000

ismi_resistance

2nd

34

14.33 ± 2.27

0.085

32

15.19 ± 2.26

-0.428

0.125

-0.512

ismi_discrimation

1st

76

11.93 ± 3.10

74

11.38 ± 3.10

0.274

0.327

ismi_discrimation

2nd

34

11.78 ± 2.66

0.089

32

11.11 ± 2.64

0.155

0.306

0.394

sss_affective

1st

76

9.99 ± 3.52

74

10.03 ± 3.52

0.944

-0.021

sss_affective

2nd

34

9.88 ± 2.98

0.057

32

8.85 ± 2.97

0.630

0.160

0.552

sss_behavior

1st

76

9.86 ± 3.69

74

9.58 ± 3.69

0.650

0.140

sss_behavior

2nd

34

9.62 ± 3.13

0.122

32

8.88 ± 3.11

0.359

0.338

0.377

sss_cognitive

1st

76

8.21 ± 3.67

74

8.28 ± 3.67

0.903

-0.036

sss_cognitive

2nd

34

8.51 ± 3.14

-0.152

32

7.40 ± 3.12

0.442

0.148

0.557

sss

1st

76

28.05 ± 10.11

74

27.89 ± 10.11

0.923

0.033

sss

2nd

34

27.93 ± 8.31

0.025

32

25.24 ± 8.25

0.546

0.189

0.554

Between group

recovery_stage_a

1st

t(199.66) = -0.61, p = 0.541, Cohen d = 0.12, 95% CI (-0.49 to 0.26)

2st

t(204.63) = 1.14, p = 0.255, Cohen d = -0.33, 95% CI (-0.23 to 0.87)

recovery_stage_b

1st

t(188.60) = 0.17, p = 0.868, Cohen d = -0.04, 95% CI (-0.84 to 0.99)

2st

t(201.52) = 1.53, p = 0.128, Cohen d = -0.49, 95% CI (-0.29 to 2.30)

ras_confidence

1st

t(169.64) = 0.40, p = 0.692, Cohen d = -0.12, 95% CI (-1.31 to 1.97)

2st

t(207.41) = 1.08, p = 0.280, Cohen d = -0.42, 95% CI (-0.95 to 3.26)

ras_willingness

1st

t(170.01) = 0.67, p = 0.505, Cohen d = -0.20, 95% CI (-0.43 to 0.87)

2st

t(207.16) = 2.01, p = 0.046, Cohen d = -0.77, 95% CI (0.01 to 1.69)

ras_goal

1st

t(178.48) = 0.75, p = 0.453, Cohen d = -0.19, 95% CI (-0.62 to 1.39)

2st

t(202.68) = 1.79, p = 0.075, Cohen d = -0.62, 95% CI (-0.12 to 2.60)

ras_reliance

1st

t(168.89) = 0.67, p = 0.504, Cohen d = -0.20, 95% CI (-0.61 to 1.23)

2st

t(207.93) = 1.96, p = 0.052, Cohen d = -0.76, 95% CI (-0.01 to 2.33)

ras_domination

1st

t(184.00) = -1.37, p = 0.171, Cohen d = 0.33, 95% CI (-1.28 to 0.23)

2st

t(201.50) = 1.51, p = 0.133, Cohen d = -0.50, 95% CI (-0.25 to 1.85)

symptom

1st

t(160.93) = 0.21, p = 0.831, Cohen d = -0.08, 95% CI (-2.64 to 3.28)

2st

t(212.00) = -0.44, p = 0.660, Cohen d = 0.20, 95% CI (-4.32 to 2.74)

slof_work

1st

t(169.39) = -1.01, p = 0.315, Cohen d = 0.30, 95% CI (-2.33 to 0.76)

2st

t(207.58) = -0.05, p = 0.959, Cohen d = 0.02, 95% CI (-2.03 to 1.93)

slof_relationship

1st

t(167.35) = 0.77, p = 0.441, Cohen d = -0.24, 95% CI (-1.17 to 2.66)

2st

t(209.02) = 1.38, p = 0.170, Cohen d = -0.55, 95% CI (-0.73 to 4.11)

satisfaction

1st

t(167.74) = 1.34, p = 0.181, Cohen d = -0.42, 95% CI (-0.74 to 3.88)

2st

t(208.74) = 1.41, p = 0.161, Cohen d = -0.56, 95% CI (-0.84 to 5.00)

mhc_emotional

1st

t(164.85) = 0.79, p = 0.428, Cohen d = -0.27, 95% CI (-0.72 to 1.70)

2st

t(210.66) = 0.64, p = 0.524, Cohen d = -0.27, 95% CI (-1.01 to 1.98)

mhc_social

1st

t(169.35) = 0.55, p = 0.585, Cohen d = -0.17, 95% CI (-1.35 to 2.38)

2st

t(207.61) = 0.87, p = 0.387, Cohen d = -0.34, 95% CI (-1.34 to 3.44)

mhc_psychological

1st

t(169.71) = 0.39, p = 0.697, Cohen d = -0.12, 95% CI (-1.71 to 2.55)

2st

t(207.36) = 0.28, p = 0.776, Cohen d = -0.11, 95% CI (-2.34 to 3.13)

resilisnce

1st

t(173.55) = 0.99, p = 0.325, Cohen d = -0.27, 95% CI (-0.73 to 2.20)

2st

t(204.93) = 2.24, p = 0.026, Cohen d = -0.82, 95% CI (0.26 to 4.13)

social_provision

1st

t(175.07) = 1.61, p = 0.108, Cohen d = -0.44, 95% CI (-0.17 to 1.69)

2st

t(204.12) = 2.62, p = 0.009, Cohen d = -0.94, 95% CI (0.41 to 2.87)

els_value_living

1st

t(171.18) = 1.38, p = 0.170, Cohen d = -0.40, 95% CI (-0.30 to 1.71)

2st

t(206.38) = 1.11, p = 0.268, Cohen d = -0.42, 95% CI (-0.57 to 2.05)

els_life_fulfill

1st

t(164.57) = 1.61, p = 0.109, Cohen d = -0.55, 95% CI (-0.20 to 1.94)

2st

t(210.83) = 1.21, p = 0.226, Cohen d = -0.51, 95% CI (-0.51 to 2.13)

els

1st

t(163.21) = 1.64, p = 0.103, Cohen d = -0.58, 95% CI (-0.32 to 3.48)

2st

t(211.51) = 1.26, p = 0.210, Cohen d = -0.54, 95% CI (-0.84 to 3.80)

social_connect

1st

t(163.22) = -0.31, p = 0.754, Cohen d = 0.11, 95% CI (-3.56 to 2.58)

2st

t(211.50) = -1.99, p = 0.047, Cohen d = 0.86, 95% CI (-7.55 to -0.04)

shs_agency

1st

t(164.73) = 1.00, p = 0.320, Cohen d = -0.34, 95% CI (-0.81 to 2.48)

2st

t(210.73) = 1.44, p = 0.151, Cohen d = -0.60, 95% CI (-0.55 to 3.52)

shs_pathway

1st

t(166.41) = 1.30, p = 0.194, Cohen d = -0.42, 95% CI (-0.43 to 2.11)

2st

t(209.66) = 1.02, p = 0.307, Cohen d = -0.41, 95% CI (-0.77 to 2.42)

shs

1st

t(164.14) = 1.19, p = 0.237, Cohen d = -0.41, 95% CI (-1.11 to 4.45)

2st

t(211.06) = 1.33, p = 0.185, Cohen d = -0.56, 95% CI (-1.11 to 5.72)

esteem

1st

t(195.88) = -0.05, p = 0.962, Cohen d = 0.01, 95% CI (-0.50 to 0.48)

2st

t(203.13) = -0.01, p = 0.989, Cohen d = 0.00, 95% CI (-0.72 to 0.71)

mlq_search

1st

t(178.81) = 0.90, p = 0.370, Cohen d = -0.23, 95% CI (-0.62 to 1.64)

2st

t(202.57) = -0.20, p = 0.842, Cohen d = 0.07, 95% CI (-1.69 to 1.38)

mlq_presence

1st

t(171.52) = 0.51, p = 0.613, Cohen d = -0.15, 95% CI (-1.03 to 1.74)

2st

t(206.15) = 0.21, p = 0.836, Cohen d = -0.08, 95% CI (-1.61 to 1.98)

mlq

1st

t(172.64) = 0.77, p = 0.445, Cohen d = -0.22, 95% CI (-1.37 to 3.11)

2st

t(205.46) = 0.04, p = 0.967, Cohen d = -0.02, 95% CI (-2.87 to 3.00)

empower

1st

t(165.21) = 0.95, p = 0.346, Cohen d = -0.31, 95% CI (-0.70 to 1.99)

2st

t(210.44) = -0.14, p = 0.892, Cohen d = 0.06, 95% CI (-1.79 to 1.56)

ismi_resistance

1st

t(183.57) = -0.00, p = 0.999, Cohen d = 0.00, 95% CI (-0.79 to 0.79)

2st

t(201.55) = 1.54, p = 0.125, Cohen d = -0.51, 95% CI (-0.24 to 1.96)

ismi_discrimation

1st

t(169.93) = -1.10, p = 0.274, Cohen d = 0.33, 95% CI (-1.56 to 0.44)

2st

t(207.21) = -1.03, p = 0.306, Cohen d = 0.39, 95% CI (-1.96 to 0.62)

sss_affective

1st

t(168.61) = 0.07, p = 0.944, Cohen d = -0.02, 95% CI (-1.09 to 1.17)

2st

t(208.13) = -1.41, p = 0.160, Cohen d = 0.55, 95% CI (-2.48 to 0.41)

sss_behavior

1st

t(168.30) = -0.45, p = 0.650, Cohen d = 0.14, 95% CI (-1.46 to 0.92)

2st

t(208.35) = -0.96, p = 0.338, Cohen d = 0.38, 95% CI (-2.25 to 0.78)

sss_cognitive

1st

t(169.88) = 0.12, p = 0.903, Cohen d = -0.04, 95% CI (-1.11 to 1.26)

2st

t(207.24) = -1.45, p = 0.148, Cohen d = 0.56, 95% CI (-2.64 to 0.40)

sss

1st

t(164.36) = -0.10, p = 0.923, Cohen d = 0.03, 95% CI (-3.42 to 3.10)

2st

t(210.94) = -1.32, p = 0.189, Cohen d = 0.55, 95% CI (-6.71 to 1.33)

Within treatment group

recovery_stage_a

1st vs 2st

t(103.00) = 2.37, p = 0.040, Cohen d = -0.54, 95% CI (0.08 to 0.94)

recovery_stage_b

1st vs 2st

t(91.72) = 1.07, p = 0.579, Cohen d = -0.25, 95% CI (-0.44 to 1.46)

ras_confidence

1st vs 2st

t(77.27) = 2.70, p = 0.017, Cohen d = -0.65, 95% CI (0.47 to 3.12)

ras_willingness

1st vs 2st

t(77.52) = 1.06, p = 0.584, Cohen d = -0.25, 95% CI (-0.25 to 0.81)

ras_goal

1st vs 2st

t(83.53) = 1.94, p = 0.111, Cohen d = -0.46, 95% CI (-0.02 to 1.84)

ras_reliance

1st vs 2st

t(76.77) = 3.34, p = 0.003, Cohen d = -0.80, 95% CI (0.49 to 1.95)

ras_domination

1st vs 2st

t(87.83) = 2.75, p = 0.014, Cohen d = -0.64, 95% CI (0.29 to 1.78)

symptom

1st vs 2st

t(71.66) = -1.79, p = 0.156, Cohen d = 0.44, 95% CI (-3.64 to 0.20)

slof_work

1st vs 2st

t(77.10) = 0.37, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.09, 95% CI (-1.01 to 1.47)

slof_relationship

1st vs 2st

t(75.75) = 0.60, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.14, 95% CI (-1.03 to 1.92)

satisfaction

1st vs 2st

t(76.00) = 1.42, p = 0.318, Cohen d = -0.34, 95% CI (-0.51 to 3.08)

mhc_emotional

1st vs 2st

t(74.13) = 0.65, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.16, 95% CI (-0.59 to 1.17)

mhc_social

1st vs 2st

t(77.08) = 1.43, p = 0.315, Cohen d = -0.34, 95% CI (-0.42 to 2.57)

mhc_psychological

1st vs 2st

t(77.32) = 0.99, p = 0.651, Cohen d = -0.24, 95% CI (-0.87 to 2.58)

resilisnce

1st vs 2st

t(79.96) = 2.88, p = 0.010, Cohen d = -0.69, 95% CI (0.57 to 3.10)

social_provision

1st vs 2st

t(81.03) = 0.67, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.16, 95% CI (-0.55 to 1.10)

els_value_living

1st vs 2st

t(78.32) = 1.02, p = 0.618, Cohen d = -0.25, 95% CI (-0.41 to 1.27)

els_life_fulfill

1st vs 2st

t(73.94) = 1.20, p = 0.471, Cohen d = -0.29, 95% CI (-0.31 to 1.23)

els

1st vs 2st

t(73.08) = 1.24, p = 0.436, Cohen d = -0.30, 95% CI (-0.50 to 2.15)

social_connect

1st vs 2st

t(73.09) = -2.51, p = 0.028, Cohen d = 0.61, 95% CI (-4.84 to -0.56)

shs_agency

1st vs 2st

t(74.05) = 1.43, p = 0.313, Cohen d = -0.35, 95% CI (-0.34 to 2.05)

shs_pathway

1st vs 2st

t(75.13) = 0.49, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.12, 95% CI (-0.72 to 1.20)

shs

1st vs 2st

t(73.68) = 1.08, p = 0.566, Cohen d = -0.26, 95% CI (-0.91 to 3.06)

esteem

1st vs 2st

t(98.74) = 0.65, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.15, 95% CI (-0.37 to 0.72)

mlq_search

1st vs 2st

t(83.77) = -0.44, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.10, 95% CI (-1.28 to 0.82)

mlq_presence

1st vs 2st

t(78.55) = 0.74, p = 0.926, Cohen d = -0.18, 95% CI (-0.73 to 1.58)

mlq

1st vs 2st

t(79.32) = 0.22, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.05, 95% CI (-1.69 to 2.12)

empower

1st vs 2st

t(74.36) = -0.13, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.03, 95% CI (-1.05 to 0.92)

ismi_resistance

1st vs 2st

t(87.48) = 1.83, p = 0.142, Cohen d = -0.43, 95% CI (-0.06 to 1.50)

ismi_discrimation

1st vs 2st

t(77.46) = -0.65, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.16, 95% CI (-1.08 to 0.55)

sss_affective

1st vs 2st

t(76.58) = -2.62, p = 0.021, Cohen d = 0.63, 95% CI (-2.08 to -0.28)

sss_behavior

1st vs 2st

t(76.38) = -1.49, p = 0.280, Cohen d = 0.36, 95% CI (-1.64 to 0.24)

sss_cognitive

1st vs 2st

t(77.44) = -1.84, p = 0.138, Cohen d = 0.44, 95% CI (-1.85 to 0.07)

sss

1st vs 2st

t(73.81) = -2.25, p = 0.054, Cohen d = 0.55, 95% CI (-4.99 to -0.31)

Within control group

recovery_stage_a

1st vs 2st

t(101.70) = 0.36, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.08, 95% CI (-0.34 to 0.49)

recovery_stage_b

1st vs 2st

t(90.83) = -0.90, p = 0.738, Cohen d = 0.20, 95% CI (-1.34 to 0.50)

ras_confidence

1st vs 2st

t(76.88) = 1.50, p = 0.276, Cohen d = -0.35, 95% CI (-0.32 to 2.25)

ras_willingness

1st vs 2st

t(77.12) = -1.36, p = 0.358, Cohen d = 0.32, 95% CI (-0.87 to 0.16)

ras_goal

1st vs 2st

t(82.93) = 0.12, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.03, 95% CI (-0.85 to 0.96)

ras_reliance

1st vs 2st

t(76.39) = 1.05, p = 0.593, Cohen d = -0.25, 95% CI (-0.33 to 1.08)

ras_domination

1st vs 2st

t(87.08) = -0.80, p = 0.849, Cohen d = 0.18, 95% CI (-1.02 to 0.43)

symptom

1st vs 2st

t(71.44) = -0.65, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.15, 95% CI (-2.47 to 1.25)

slof_work

1st vs 2st

t(76.72) = -0.84, p = 0.809, Cohen d = 0.20, 95% CI (-1.71 to 0.70)

slof_relationship

1st vs 2st

t(75.41) = -0.69, p = 0.985, Cohen d = 0.16, 95% CI (-1.93 to 0.94)

satisfaction

1st vs 2st

t(75.65) = 0.88, p = 0.765, Cohen d = -0.21, 95% CI (-0.97 to 2.51)

mhc_emotional

1st vs 2st

t(73.83) = 0.67, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.16, 95% CI (-0.57 to 1.14)

mhc_social

1st vs 2st

t(76.69) = 0.74, p = 0.925, Cohen d = -0.17, 95% CI (-0.91 to 1.99)

mhc_psychological

1st vs 2st

t(76.93) = 1.05, p = 0.595, Cohen d = -0.24, 95% CI (-0.79 to 2.55)

resilisnce

1st vs 2st

t(79.48) = 0.60, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.14, 95% CI (-0.86 to 1.60)

social_provision

1st vs 2st

t(80.52) = -1.51, p = 0.270, Cohen d = 0.35, 95% CI (-1.40 to 0.19)

els_value_living

1st vs 2st

t(77.89) = 0.98, p = 0.665, Cohen d = -0.23, 95% CI (-0.42 to 1.21)

els_life_fulfill

1st vs 2st

t(73.66) = 1.39, p = 0.338, Cohen d = -0.33, 95% CI (-0.23 to 1.27)

els

1st vs 2st

t(72.82) = 1.43, p = 0.313, Cohen d = -0.34, 95% CI (-0.36 to 2.21)

social_connect

1st vs 2st

t(72.83) = 0.58, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.14, 95% CI (-1.47 to 2.69)

shs_agency

1st vs 2st

t(73.76) = 0.35, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.08, 95% CI (-0.96 to 1.36)

shs_pathway

1st vs 2st

t(74.81) = 0.54, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.13, 95% CI (-0.68 to 1.18)

shs

1st vs 2st

t(73.40) = 0.46, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.11, 95% CI (-1.49 to 2.37)

esteem

1st vs 2st

t(97.59) = 0.64, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.14, 95% CI (-0.36 to 0.70)

mlq_search

1st vs 2st

t(83.17) = 0.85, p = 0.792, Cohen d = -0.20, 95% CI (-0.58 to 1.46)

mlq_presence

1st vs 2st

t(78.12) = 1.05, p = 0.591, Cohen d = -0.24, 95% CI (-0.53 to 1.71)

mlq

1st vs 2st

t(78.87) = 1.10, p = 0.553, Cohen d = -0.25, 95% CI (-0.83 to 2.87)

empower

1st vs 2st

t(74.06) = 1.44, p = 0.305, Cohen d = -0.34, 95% CI (-0.26 to 1.66)

ismi_resistance

1st vs 2st

t(86.74) = -0.37, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.08, 95% CI (-0.90 to 0.62)

ismi_discrimation

1st vs 2st

t(77.07) = -0.38, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.09, 95% CI (-0.94 to 0.64)

sss_affective

1st vs 2st

t(76.21) = -0.24, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.06, 95% CI (-0.98 to 0.77)

sss_behavior

1st vs 2st

t(76.01) = -0.52, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.12, 95% CI (-1.15 to 0.67)

sss_cognitive

1st vs 2st

t(77.04) = 0.65, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.15, 95% CI (-0.63 to 1.24)

sss

1st vs 2st

t(73.53) = -0.11, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.03, 95% CI (-2.40 to 2.15)

Plot

Clinical significance